Mac's comment reminds us that this began as a concern over preferred sources for titles of resources. Our charge does not explicitly limit our consideration that way. Are we ready to go there? -- Scharff, 10/22/11

+

Mac's comment reminds us that this began as a concern over preferred sources for titles of resources. Our charge does not explicitly limit our consideration that way. Are we ready to go there?

+

--Scharff, 10/22/11

−

The OLAC desire to provide for a preferred source that presents the title of a predominant work to be the preferred source, and the MLA goal of giving collective titles preference over non-collective titles, suggest a larger question—what purpose the title being chosen for transcription is meant to serve. That sounds like a very naïve question; the Glossary definition of “title” is pretty simple: “A word, character, or group of words and/or characters that names a resource or a work contained in it.” MLA’s position is that a source that bears a title that is considered a discrete “word, character, or group of words and/or characters” that names a resource, i.e. a collective title, is to be preferred; from that comes the need to untangle some of the ambiguity about the status of containers, and the notion of whether this could present unacceptable results in some formats. OLAC’s goal perhaps hinges on the second phrase of the definition—“a work contained in it”—since the desire is to allow the identification of a “predominant work;” its source of title would be that for the resource as a whole.

+

The OLAC desire to provide for a preferred source that presents the title of a predominant work to be the preferred source, and the MLA goal of giving collective titles preference over non-collective titles, suggest a larger question—what purpose the title being chosen for transcription is meant to serve. That sounds like a very naïve question; the Glossary definition of “title” is pretty simple: “A word, character, or group of words and/or characters that names a resource or a work contained in it.” MLA’s position is that a source that bears a title that is considered a discrete “word, character, or group of words and/or characters” that names a resource, i.e. a collective title, is to be preferred; from that comes the need to untangle some of the ambiguity about the status of containers, and the notion of whether this could present unacceptable results in some formats. OLAC’s goal perhaps hinges on the second phrase of the definition—“a work contained in it”—since the desire is to allow the identification of a “predominant work;” its source of title would be that for the resource as a whole.

The instructions as written don’t explicitly refute the definition of title, but they make presumptions about what the most common situations will be. That’s where things get tricky because we then get into the format-based instructions for what to use.

The instructions as written don’t explicitly refute the definition of title, but they make presumptions about what the most common situations will be. That’s where things get tricky because we then get into the format-based instructions for what to use.

Revision as of 16:56, 22 October 2011

To enter your comments, click on link where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

Always log in before editing.

Paste in your comments, signing them with:

Your name
Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Contents

Charge

The Task Force on Sources of Information (RDA 2.1 and 2.2) is charged to review the current instructions under RDA 2.1 Basis for Identification of the Resource and 2.2 Sources of Information to address previously identified concerns of MLA and OLAC and to adopt a more principled approach to instructions for sources of information that will work for all materials. The task force should review the MLA proposal CC:DA/MLA/2011/1 and the related committee discussion on the wiki and discussion list.

The task force should address these specific concerns:

From MLA: for a resource embodying multiple works, establishing a collective title as the preferred means for identifying a resource as a whole
From MLA: clarifying the status of the container and accompanying textual material as potential preferred sources
From OLAC: for a resource lacking a collective title with one predominant work, providing a means to treat the title of that work as the title proper (equivalent for AACR2 1.1G1)
From CC:DA discussion: simplifying the instructions for preferred sources and presenting them as broad principles, supported by examples
From JSC representative: ensuring that the approach works for all materials

The task force should present its report (including any revision to RDA it wishes to recommend) by Midwinter 2012.

General Comments

Received from Mac Elrod via Lori Robare, 9/6/2011:

"In considering the sources of information for multi part materials, a
question so well raised by music cataloguers, I wonder if CC:DA might
not extend consideration to the source of information for print
multipart items and serials, including multivolume sets.

A generalized rule which applies to all material, with repeating
imprint (whether in MARC repeating 260 or 260 subfields) would benefit
the records for all resources.

Relegating later publisher(s) to note position is misleading to
patrons, who often do not get so far as notes, as well as being a
holdover from the unit card. While earlier publisher(s) of integrating
resources could perhaps be sacrificed, later publisher(s) of multi
part items are relevant for identification by patrons, and serial
check in for library acquisitions.

For all resources, the source of information for imprint should be
extended to all parts.

Feel free to share with the task force."

--Scharff, 10/22/11

Mac's comment reminds us that this began as a concern over preferred sources for titles of resources. Our charge does not explicitly limit our consideration that way. Are we ready to go there?
--Scharff, 10/22/11

The OLAC desire to provide for a preferred source that presents the title of a predominant work to be the preferred source, and the MLA goal of giving collective titles preference over non-collective titles, suggest a larger question—what purpose the title being chosen for transcription is meant to serve. That sounds like a very naïve question; the Glossary definition of “title” is pretty simple: “A word, character, or group of words and/or characters that names a resource or a work contained in it.” MLA’s position is that a source that bears a title that is considered a discrete “word, character, or group of words and/or characters” that names a resource, i.e. a collective title, is to be preferred; from that comes the need to untangle some of the ambiguity about the status of containers, and the notion of whether this could present unacceptable results in some formats. OLAC’s goal perhaps hinges on the second phrase of the definition—“a work contained in it”—since the desire is to allow the identification of a “predominant work;” its source of title would be that for the resource as a whole.

The instructions as written don’t explicitly refute the definition of title, but they make presumptions about what the most common situations will be. That’s where things get tricky because we then get into the format-based instructions for what to use.

So is a first step to confirm or refute the notion I’ve presented above?